Watson is Out of his Mind

[general35]

The scene on MSNBC last night was comical...watson should have been more prepared. Obama is new to the senate and has not had a lot of time to pass through much legislation, as a former colleague I know once described the law, congress moves with "glacial majesty."

Anyway, Watson should have popped out this gem of Obama's which has passed the committe phase and the house...the Global Poverty Act.
The Link

The legislation, if approved, dedicates 0.7 percent of the U.S. gross national product to foreign aid, which over 13 years he said would amount to $845 billion "over and above what the U.S. already spends."

Or maybe Watson was embarrassed to mention this....

 

[JohnnyM]

not only are there numerous threads on Watson, there's threads on the Poverty Act too. were those not enough?

oh and just a little tiny bit of info...the legislation doesn't say anything about 0.7% of GDP. it says we should work towards the Millennium Goals...which include the 0.7% provision. but since we promised that amount 35 years ago and never came through, why do you think we'd start now?

again, read the legislation. tell us what it specifically requires.

 

[general35]

I'm just curious why watson did not mention the global poverty act, it is, to my knowledge the only bill of obama's to get out of committee.

 

[Horn6721]

General
Now you have done it. You called into question obama's landmark bill.
Watson didn't mention it since it just got out of committee, OH wait that was a WEEK ago.
maybe Obama and his people didn't know
because certainly something as worthy as this would have been mentioned.
Maybe Obama is waiting for the right time to announce it. Maybe obama is looking for the right audience that would appreciate knowing the deal with the Un would mean the US will need to give them nearly a billion more over next few years in aid than we already give in foreign aid now
Yea I bet that is why Watson didn't mention it

 

[Texas007]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[afat]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Horn6721]

007
Maybe it is a hollow feel good bill
this has ben asked before on here but there doesn't appear to be any answer
S2433, the bill does this :
To require the President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day.

The devil is in the details of the Millennium Development Goal, a UN project developed in 2000. There are items in this plan including being required to sign treaties, treaties the USA has refused to sign for 20 years
It may not actually tie us to the Millenium Goals completely, but that depends on how it is interpreted.
If, however, it is interpreted to mean that since we are ratifying a portion of the Millenium Declaration, we are obligating ourselves to the whole thing. That is a slippery slope if ever there was one.
For example there are sections in there that talk of requiring banning of small arms and light weapons.
If we are not obligated to the entire Millennium Goal project why can't obama or Biden or Lugar say that?

I should NOT be surprised that some on here say this bill only means we will do something we should have been doing for 35 years and never think to ask WHY we haven't done it for 35 years

 

[JohnnyM]

In reply to:

---

---